Article

2007-01-27 China-Japan-Koreas

Japan will never tolerate nuclear North Korea: Abe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-01-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 PAKI-Times: TOKYO: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Friday that Japan will never tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Damn if that isn't the strongest National Defense policy declaration I've ever seen from a Japanese Prime Minister, then I've forgotten it.

Posted by RD 2007-01-27 00:16|| 2007-01-27 00:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Hell yeah Abe!

However NK does have nukes already but I think an excellent MD will be a double whammpy against NK and China.

Posted by Gloque Elmang4914 2007-01-27 01:15|| 2007-01-27 01:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Well, this is the Japan that we were all asking for. It may turn out to be quite a double-edged sword, however.

Posted by gromky 2007-01-27 01:22|| 2007-01-27 01:22|| Front Page Top

#4 g: Well, this is the Japan that we were all asking for. It may turn out to be quite a double-edged sword, however.

I'm not exactly sure what he meant. We've said all kinds of things about not tolerating such-and-such. And done absolutely nothing when our foreign counterpart went out and did it. I think Abe's pushing on a string. He's got nothing to pressure the North Koreans with, so he's reduced to ratcheting up the rhetoric. Once the North Koreans call his bluff, he'll be reduced to repeating the same kinds of statements, with different words, just like a parrot, and with as much effect. The reality is that nothing will stop North Korea from going nuclear, unless its Chinese master threatens to cut its food and oil off.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-27 02:37|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-27 02:37|| Front Page Top

#5 I agree with your point, ZF, about how little Japan can do to NK, but what about indirect pressure? If Japan rearms and starts to look like 1931 again, might that not convince Hu to curb his dog?

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-01-27 07:45|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-01-27 07:45|| Front Page Top

#6 He's got nothing to pressure the North Koreans with, so he's reduced to ratcheting up the rhetoric.

No directly, but China does not want a nuclear armed Japan.

Posted by DMFD 2007-01-27 09:27|| 2007-01-27 09:27|| Front Page Top

#7 No directly, but China does not want a nuclear armed Japan.

Neither do I.

Posted by Toadfish Sushimi 2007-01-27 09:33|| 2007-01-27 09:33|| Front Page Top

#8 J: I agree with your point, ZF, about how little Japan can do to NK, but what about indirect pressure? If Japan rearms and starts to look like 1931 again, might that not convince Hu to curb his dog?

The Chinese government knows that the Japanese were spayed by their casualties from WWII. All of their anti-Japanese noises have been ploys to extort money and diplomatic concession from the Japanese and shore up their own popularity with a Chinese public they have indoctrinated, from first grade, with anti-Japanese hatred.

There is no way Japan could credibly threaten to go nuclear. In the remote event that it did, Japan is tiny and concentrated, whereas China is huge and dispersed. Which country is better situated to prevail in a nuclear war? China's not afraid of a nuclear Japan.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-27 11:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-27 11:57|| Front Page Top

#9 and a nuclear Taiwan?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-27 12:17|| 2007-01-27 12:17|| Front Page Top

#10 FG: and a nuclear Taiwan?

Nukes won't help improve Taiwan's position, either, for the simple reason that it can't use them. Taiwan is a lot like Japan - small and densely populated (5 times China's). Look at it from a practical standpoint - China has enough nukes (hundreds) within range to kill every single person on Taiwan. If Taiwan used nukes against China, it would cease to exist. Even the Japanese surrendered after a mere 3.5% of its population was killed during WWII. Taiwan's not going to risk complete nuclear annihilation just to remain free.

Nukes are mainly good for deterring the other side's use of nukes. But no one really thinks China's going to use nukes against Taiwan. I think that would get even the normally-supportive Chinese population (on Taiwan issues) riled up against the central government. The fact that Taiwan can't use them at all, and China can't use them except in retaliation for a Taiwanese nuclear attack, is why the acquisition of nukes by Taiwan is pointless, and unlikely to worry China.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-01-27 13:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-01-27 13:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Taiwan doesn't need a nuke. It needs a reliable penetrating warhead and the ability to deliver said warhead to the Three Gorges dam. It needs about a 90% probability rating (total) on such a system. Then they need to make it very clear to Mr. Hu, very quietly, so as to save face for the Chinese. Problem solved.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-01-27 14:08|| 2007-01-27 14:08|| Front Page Top

#12 that was my thinking, SW - the flyash contribution makes it a reliable target, even with high explosives

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-27 14:26|| 2007-01-27 14:26|| Front Page Top

#13 How many engineers (good ones) Japan has as compared to China?

Posted by gromgoru 2007-01-27 15:02|| 2007-01-27 15:02|| Front Page Top

#14 and a nuclear Taiwan?

And a nuclear armed South Korea, and an already nuclear armed India with less warm relations than they currently have? Vietnam doesn't seem to like China much lately. Can they be "boxed" in and somewhat contained that way?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-27 15:30|| 2007-01-27 15:30|| Front Page Top

#15 ZF's point (IMHO) is that China is too huge and hugely populated to worry about a single nuke attack. I disagree. They can be made to pay bigtime for their behavior, and not just by nukes. They have shit for troop transport beyond their borders, and their Navy is bush-league. They have missiles and numbers, both of which can be negated.They are also becoming intertwined in the global economy, for better or worse. If I were a company, I would be hesitant to have my sole manufacturing base in any one country (see: Venezuela). Redundancy and duplication offers alternatives should a...say...earthquake..or naval blockade...disrupt supply

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-27 15:38|| 2007-01-27 15:38|| Front Page Top

#16 Zhang Fei, strategically the Chinese let the cat ~~is out of the bag altogether~~ poop in their chop suey.

The Chinese blundered big time along with their piddling Nork allies.

fact #1: 10-15 years ago Japan and the USA were strategically drifting apart, quite naturally.

But Now [thank you china] Because of China's antics and intransigence over Sea/territory rights, and their proxy support of the Norks/Nukes..IT REVERSED, Japan and the USA have not only reversed the strategic drift apart but have re-united and built up an even stronger defense pac together than ever before.

At a minimum the strategic tools that the US/Japanese defense pac is now building towards will cost the Chinese billions and billions just to to try and keep up with.

Not to mention the potential of Japan's armed forces, Navy, Air Force, Army, Space, Nukes etc.

Posted by RD 2007-01-27 15:51|| 2007-01-27 15:51|| Front Page Top

#17 If Taiwan and Japan had nukes:

Taiwan and Japan would not use nukes first against China, but they would on the way out. China wouldn't use nukes first on Taiwan because there would be nothing left to own and everything to lose politically for the next 100 years (which may not mean as much to them as it does to other western societies, or may not end up meaning as much to western societies as they like to say/think). So China would have to attack more subtly, sticking the knife in Taiwan slowly so they don't get nuked. Exactly what more eastern societies are geared for should they decide to go that route. But China is becoming westernized, so it may never get that far. They just haven't evolved enough to drop past pride and figure out that taking Taiwan isn't in their strategic intetest anymore. Better to have them as a partner than to take them over, much like the US and Japan. And perhaps China has figured it out and is just using it as a rallying cry for the peasantry and as a useful excuse to expand their military.

Posted by gorb 2007-01-27 16:45|| 2007-01-27 16:45|| Front Page Top

#18 agreed, Gorb up to the point that Taiwan isn't really an issue. I suspect that re-absorbing Taiwan is a make-or-break in Chinese Politburo political ascension. The false "face" in pursuing conquering Taiwan hasn't become a negative, yet, to the poltical elite, IIUC. The refuse to consider the obvious downside of killing the golden goose, and inheriting a smoking island and world-wide ridicule/condemnation. Acquiring Taiwan via violence would set China back 50-100 years, and gain little. They are poseurs for the cause, right now

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-27 16:55|| 2007-01-27 16:55|| Front Page Top

#19 RD wrote: fact #1: 10-15 years ago Japan and the USA were strategically drifting apart, quite naturally.

So much so that George Friedman wrote a book entitled "The Coming War With Japan" in which he laid out the reasons and a scenario that was scarily reminscent of the situation leading to WW2 between Japan and the US.

It's nice to know Friedman was, to-date, wrong.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-01-27 20:33|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-01-27 20:33|| Front Page Top

23:48 Zhang Fei
23:46 Zhang Fei
23:42 Zhang Fei
23:16 SteveS
22:29 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:22 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:10 trailing wife
21:52 Purple P
21:37 Islam O Phoebe
21:35 RD
21:16 RD
21:11 Anonymoose
21:10 SteveS
21:04 Free Radical
21:00 xbalanke
20:48 BigEd
20:45 TomAnon
20:36 FOTSGreg
20:36 xbalanke
20:35 DMFD
20:33 FOTSGreg
20:32 KBK
20:20 xbalanke
20:18 phil_b